www.violationtrackeruk

                                                                   

The COCOO-Violation Tracker Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Corporate Accountability

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating Violation Tracker UK (violationtrackeruk.goodjobsfirst.org), a comprehensive database of corporate regulatory infringements. This is not a historical archive; it is a live weapon system. We will use this platform to systematically identify corporate wrongdoing, build irrefutable evidence dossiers for our complaints (COCON), find entire classes of victims (FOC DAM), disqualify competitors from public tenders, and expose the “Enforcement Gaps” that are central to our strategy of challenging regulatory discretion. This platform is the primary engine for turning corporate misconduct into strategic leverage for COCOO.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Violation Tracker is governed by the most aggressive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking for violations; we are looking for patterns of impunity and the victims left in their wake.

  • Violations as Evidence: Every entry in this database is a piece of adjudicated evidence of corporate failure. We will use this evidence as the factual bedrock for our complaints, media campaigns, and Unsolicited Proposals (USP), transforming our claims from allegations into documented facts.
  • The FOC DAM Multiplier: The “Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages” doctrine is the core of our mission.1 Violation Tracker is its engine. A pattern of consumer-protection-related offences by a single company like Lloyds Banking Group or Barclays proves that the harm is not isolated, instantly identifying a mass of potential claimants for a group action.2
  • The Competitor Disqualification Engine: A key COCOO strategy is to “EXCLUDE THEM FROM EU PROC/CONCS” (public procurement/concessions).1 A competitor’s rap sheet on Violation Tracker—for example, environmental violations by a utility like Thames Water or workplace safety violations by a contractor like Network Rail—is the perfect weapon to disqualify them from a public tender on risk, safety, and public interest grounds.2
  • The Enforcement Gap Indictment: We will systematically compare the volume and type of violations recorded here against the stated priorities and performance reports of regulators (found on data.gov.uk). A high number of penalties for water pollution, coupled with the regulator’s own data showing rising pollution levels, is proof of an “Enforcement Gap” and forms the basis of a WPI (Public Interest) complaint against the regulator itself for failing in its duty.1

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of Violation Tracker’s Advanced Search is paramount. Its granular filtering allows us to dissect the landscape of corporate misconduct with surgical precision.

  • Official Search Rules & Functionality: The Advanced Search page is our primary interface. The rules and options for interrogation are as follows 2:
    • COMPANY OR CURRENT PARENT: Search by company name. Supports operators like “Starts with,” “Contains any word,” and “Is equal to.”
    • PARENT AT THE TIME OF PENALTY: Search for the parent company at the time of the offence, crucial for tracking liability through M&A activity.
    • PENALTY AMOUNT (£): Filter by the size of the penalty, using operators like “Is greater than” to focus only on the most significant cases.
    • AGENCY: A critical filter allowing us to isolate all enforcement actions by a specific regulator (e.g., Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority).
    • PARENT INDUSTRY: Filter by broad industry sectors (e.g., financial services, utilities and power generation) to conduct sectoral analysis.
    • OFFENCE GROUP: A high-level filter for the category of misconduct. This is a primary tool for strategic analysis. The groups are:
      • competition-related offences
      • consumer-protection-related offences
      • employment-related offences
      • environment-related offences
      • financial offences
      • healthcare-related offences
      • safety-related offences
    • OFFENCE TYPE: The most powerful filter, allowing for highly granular targeting of specific violations. The list is extensive and includes, but is not limited to:
      • price-fixing or anti-competitive practices
      • consumer protection violation
      • environmental violation
      • water pollution violation
      • workplace safety or health violation
      • anti-money-laundering deficiencies
      • bribery
      • fraud
    • Other Filters: The platform also allows filtering by Parent Ownership Structure (e.g., publicly traded, privately held), Year, UK NATION/REGION, and Full Text search across all record fields.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this database to find the patterns of misconduct that fuel our campaigns.

  • For Competitor Analysis & Disqualification:

    • “Our competitor for a major public infrastructure contract is “. What is their complete history of workplace safety or health violation and environmental violation offences over the last 10 years?”
    • “Generate a list of all penalties over £1 million issued by the Agency: ‘Health and Safety Executive’. Which construction and engineering firms appear most frequently?”

  • For FOC DAM & Mass Victim Identification:

    • “Which UK banks and financial services firms, such as “, have the highest number of penalties for Offence Group: ‘consumer-protection-related offences’ and Offence Type: ‘investor protection violation’?”
    • “Show me all penalties issued to UK water companies, including “, for Offence Type: ‘water pollution violation’. This data will form the basis of a class action on behalf of affected communities.”

  • For The Enforcement Gap Indictment:

    • “The Gambling Commission claims to be cracking down on the industry. Search for all penalties issued by Agency: ‘UKGC’ for Offence Type: ‘gambling industry violation’. How do the penalty amounts compare to the profits of the companies involved, like [e.g., Entain or Flutter Entertainment]? Does the data suggest the penalties are merely a cost of doing business?”
    • “The CMA has stated that tackling cartels is a priority. Generate a list of all penalties for Offence Type: ‘price-fixing or anti-competitive practices’. How many of these cases were initiated by the CMA versus being follow-on actions from EU decisions? This helps assess their proactivity.”

4. The COCOO-Violation Tracker Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this platform to generate high-impact intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Public Tender Disqualification” Dossier

  • Objective: To build an evidence-based risk dossier on a competitor to disqualify them from a public procurement process.
  • Execution:
    1. Identify Target: A competitor, “, is bidding for a government contract.
    2. Conduct Violation Search: On Violation Tracker’s Advanced Search, enter the competitor’s name in the COMPANY OR CURRENT PARENT field. Do not filter by offence type initially to get a complete picture.
    3. Categorize Offences: Analyze the results. Group the violations by Offence Group (e.g., Employment-related, Safety-related, Financial).
    4. Quantify the Risk: Tally the total number of violations and the total penalty amounts.
    5. Draft the “Risk Memorandum”: Prepare a formal submission to the contracting authority’s Procurement Review Unit. The memo will not make accusations but will present the public facts: “For your due diligence, we wish to highlight publicly available data from Violation Tracker UK, which shows that [Competitor X] has incurred [Number] penalties totaling [£ Amount] since 2010 for offences including [list 2-3 most serious offence types]. This data may be relevant when assessing bidder reliability and reputational risk to the government.”
  • Strategic Outcome: This places the onus on the contracting authority to justify awarding a contract to a company with a documented history of misconduct, creating powerful leverage to have them disqualified.

Playbook B: The “Mass Victim (FOC DAM)” Generator

  • Objective: To use a pattern of consumer or environmental violations to identify a large class of victims for a potential group action.
  • Execution:
    1. Identify Systemic Abuse: On the Advanced Search, filter by Offence Group: “consumer-protection-related offences” and Parent Industry: “retailing” or “financial services”.
    2. Isolate the Worst Offender: Sort the results to identify the parent company with the highest total penalties or number of cases. Example: A major high-street bank or a “Big Six” energy supplier like E.ON.
    3. Analyze the Violation Type: Drill down into the specific Offence Type for that company. Is there a recurring pattern of consumer protection violation related to mis-selling or unfair fees?
    4. Build the Coalition: The existence of dozens or hundreds of adjudicated violations proves that the harm is widespread. This data is the core evidence used to launch a media campaign to find individual victims and build a coalition for a mass claim.
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook transforms regulatory penalties into a powerful case origination engine, allowing COCOO to identify and mobilize a large group of claimants with a pre-existing, officially documented grievance.

Playbook C: The “Enforcement Gap” Indictment

  • Objective: To build an irrefutable, data-driven case that a specific regulator is failing in its statutory duty, creating the grounds for a judicial review or high-level political intervention.
  • Execution:
    1. Select Regulator: Choose a regulator to audit, e.g., the Environment Agency.
    2. Harvest Violation Data: On Violation Tracker, filter by Agency: “Environment Agency” and Offence Group: “environment-related offences”. Export the data.
    3. Harvest Performance Data: On data.gov.uk, find the Environment Agency’s own published annual reports and performance data (Playbook A from the data.gov.uk doctrine).
    4. Find the Contradiction: Compare the datasets. Does the Violation Tracker data show a rising number of penalties for a specific Offence Type (e.g., water pollution violation) in a specific region, while the regulator’s own performance data shows they are meeting their targets for that region? This contradiction is the “Enforcement Gap.”
    5. Deploy the Challenge: This evidence is used to Challenge Discretion. A formal complaint is sent to the regulator and its overseeing government department (e.g., Defra), stating: “Your own data and the public enforcement record show a clear disconnect between your stated performance and the reality of environmental harm. We demand an explanation for this enforcement gap.”
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook positions COCOO as a highly sophisticated public watchdog, capable of holding regulators to account using their own data. This creates immense political leverage and can force systemic changes that COCOO can then offer to mediate.

Leave a Reply